A 3 Islands Experiment - a thought experiment opinion question about which political philosophy would perform the best or worst

[anotherneil]

The only need for any political system or philosophy is to create a framework for resolving conflict within a socially interacting group of people.

Yes, and part of what this experiment will do is show what kind of conflict can arise and become problematic for each political ideology.

The conflicts that arise from policies that put the collective before the individual will be challenging to resolve on the socialist island, and the conflicts that arise from individuals putting themselves before the collective will probably be impossible to resolve on the anarchist island.

On the libertarian island, they'll have democracy, infrastructure, and equilibrium, so there's going to be much less conflict that can arise, and for the conflicts that do arise, they'll have a good system for resolving them.

Given your initial conditions of plenty of supplies for everyone, and presumably plenty of space in which to live, I don't think you will find much difference between any of the islands within 5 years time.

The initial supplies and conditions aren't going to last 5 years; the initial supplies will deplete, and conditions have to at least be sustained & maintained.

It is how a society deals with limits and inequalities regarding needs and wants that becomes the test of that society and its political structure.

Correct; IRL we live in a society where political ideologies are mixed together; it's hard to distinguish them. The different political ideologies will take credit for successes or blame the others for failures. The idea behind this experiment is to isolate these 3 basic political ideologies to help determine which is best & which is worst, in a scientific, objective, and impartial way.

Also, whether prioritizing individual rights or collective rights is preferable is subjective and my judgement as an outside observer would be arbitrary

How would they be arbitrary? I'm asking for a thought experiment, not for a guess.

and irrelevant.

Why would they be irrelevant? You have to live in a society of different competing political ideologies and their consequences, which affect you, your family, your friends, your coworkers, your neighbor, and your society in general, so I don't think it is irrelevant.

If your volunteers are predisposed or pre-socialized to prefer a particular social structure, presumably they will be happy in that structure filled with other like-minded individuals.

Not for 5 years, I suspect.

You may get equally high reported happiness ratings from each island at the end of the five year experiment.

I don't agree; the reason for why I don't agree is because IRL we have problems war, crime, poverty, homelessness, and political corruption that we can't seem to resolve, and the same underlying conflict or dilemma that causes these problems to manifest IRL will also have the potential exist, although at a smaller or watered down scale, on the 3 islands. Some of it is inevitably going to manifest on some of the islands, and the experiment will show which ones have a propensity to cause them to manifest, and which political ideology deals with them the best when they do.

I would also add that absent ubiquitous plenty and no conflicts ever arising, anarchism is a fantasy and not possibe in the real world.

Yes, we agree on this one.

 

[anotherneil]

1000 is small enough that there is generally going to be collective self-interest in many policies, although large enough that the society would benefit from some form of centralised authority able to enforce majority opinion on collective good.

1,000 is not only larger than Dunbar's number, it's also 6 times larger than Dunbar's number.

That's ok if there will be more in common than there is with a world full of billions of people.

I think that despite being scaled down and watered down, this experiment will be good enough to yield contrasting outcomes.

If you don't think 1,000 is enough, then make it 10,000, or a million; make it whatever can help you with this thought experiment. In general, this technique of amplifying or exaggerating the conditions is a useful approach that helps people to better understand a problem or situation.

I don't see socialism as being a 'gift economy', just one in which wealth would be redistributed for collective good.

Sure, there is a difference, in that in a gift economy (with a population smaller than Dunbar's number), it's more efficient to function in this way, since everyone knows everyone else and they're motivated by that connection to work together like a big family, and with socialism, that redistribution of wealth supposedly for the collective good doesn't work out economically, since everyone else beyond that Dunbar's number personal relation proximity is out of sight and out of mind, for all individuals.

It is also not pure communism.

I agree, it's central planning and it eventually & quickly ends up being something that caters to crony capitalism.

1000 people is basically a village, and personal relations would still play a major role at that scale.

No one has ever claimed that personal relations stop laying a major role, at any scale. The idea behind Dunbar's number is that personal relations for all individuals is limited to somewhere around 150 people.

If a society or "village" consists of 150 people or less, everyone knows everyone else to have a personal relation with them; beyond that personal relation proximity of 150 people, the rest of society is nothing more than a bunch of literally or practically nameless & faceless strangers.

Lacking a central authority would probably result in various cliques developing and ultimately competing in a manner that may well become antagonistic over time, especially if significant inequalities emerge.

I would agree that this is the dilemma that the anarchist island would be contending with.

The socialist island will have a strong & powerful central authority, but it'll still have various cliques, so they're going to compete for control of that central authority; the one that has control over the central authority will turn into crony capitalists.

The libertarian island will have some form of structure for authority, but central only where necessary, so it won't be too strong & powerful; they'll work together to oppose and prevent a strong & powerful central authority, because they understand that power corrupts & absolute power corrupts absolutely. They'll probably set it up so each neighborhood or clique elects its own representative, and each meeting has to have a different representative as chair or president each time they meet.

Provision of public utilities, economic planning and R&D is more easily done with a central authority at this scale, and at small scale is not unduly complex.

That's ok; it's not meant to be an experiment to fully simulate all the details of society.

It think it would be very interesting to see the results between the libertarian island and the socialist island, when it comes to these issues. I don't think it would be very interesting to see the results on the anarchist island, because I expect they'll only be able to achieve an everyone for themselves approach.

I think the socialist island volunteers will favor having public utilities, but this says nothing about how well they'll perform in implementing them. The libertarian island may or may not consider having public utilities; instead, they'll probably let the free market guide them, whether it's to public utilities, or something else effective, suitable, custom fit, and efficient for their population.

Economic planning is something that's considered necessary or important to socialism, so I expect this from the socialist island. Economic planning is not something that's generally considered necessary or important to libertarianism, but for their island, they may do something similar to what they do with public utilities, where applicable.

Regarding R&D, I think the socialist island might be able to develop more impressive results on paper, but the libertarian island will have better end results for itself overall & at the end of the 5-year period, by simply allowing the free market system to achieve this.

 

[anotherneil]

No political system is an island.

Hence the point of the experiment.

 

[anotherneil]

Oh, if it were only that simple. Example - I say capitalism is the way to abolish the state and government. @Heyo says that capitalism would create a de facto state (correct me if I’m wrong fellow anarchist). So we wouldn’t even be able to start up a cohesive system at all since we disagree with each other at the start about what anarchism is and how to go about it.

Ok, well, I'm referring to agreeing about what anarchism is, not what approach to achieve it. I don't really think, with this scenario that you describe, that either one of you is wrong. I actually think you're both right, in a way.

Capitalism is the way to abolish the state and government, but when you say "capitalism", I suspect that you really mean a "free market society". Capitalism is what we have everywhere (except in any small, isolated populations that still exist throughout the world), whether it's a nation with a free-market system, or a very socialist nation. When we develop enough automation, robotics, and other scientific/technological advancements, we won't need jobs anymore since it'll provide us with homes/shelter, food, transportation, and other resources for free; we practically won't need the state & government anymore, because the consequences are that no one will be driven to fight a war or commit crimes anymore & poverty and homelessness will be a thing of the past.

Capitalism would create a state and government; it does and it has. You guys can call it "de facto" if you want; I'm not sure what that means or what difference that makes.

 

[an anarchist]

Capitalism would create a state and government

Nah.

I bow out of this debate. I am rusty in my studies.

 

[anotherneil]

And here we are back to the problem of definitions. Capital L (L)ibertarians are statists, sure. They believe in limited government and have an official party. Lowercase l (l)ibertarians believe in personal liberty and that makes pure libertarians anarchists as the existence of a state counters personal liberty/individualism.

When I refer to libertarians on this thread, I'm not talking about a political party that names itself "Libertarian"; libertarians are not anarchists, because they recognize that we live in a capitalist society; they know that in a capitalist society, the "baggage" that necessarily comes with it is the existence of the state and government. There's a difference between a state with a free market system, and a state with central planning, or command-and-control economy, or state capitalism, or whatever you want to call it. To the libertarian, when it comes to capitalism, it's not the existence of the state or government that they oppose, it's that they oppose anything other than a free market system.

This notion of conflating anarchism with libertarianism is something that anarchists do; I guess it's in their nature as anarchists to do that as individuals who want to make up their own rules, including commandeering or changing definitions of words.

You and other anarchists who are trying to commandeer the word libertarian as your own are doing the same thing that evangelical zealots do, when they pretend that everything else is religion, except for their own religion; in both cases, anarchists and evangelical zealots are trying to impose rather than communicate with the collectively agreed-upon definitions of words.

 

[anotherneil]

The market exists despite of the existence of a state.

Wrong.

There is no market without state/government.

Market implies things like trade, buying, selling, ownership, and property rights.

Ownership and property rights exist if and only if the collective of society agrees that the individual or entity claiming ownership of something does have ownership of it.

Trade, buying, and selling only happens with property and ownership.

Rules - state/government laws - on trading and property rights have to exist to determine who owns what.

There has to be some sort of central office (i.e. state/government) that marks & keeps track of the location of land property boundaries.

Without state/government, all you have is might makes right. You don't own anything without state/government, even if you're holding on to it tightly with both hands; if someone bigger and stronger than you comes along and rips it out of your hands, it's theirs, now; even if you're the one who's bigger and stronger, have fun trying to sleep with one eye open.

Don't waste your time building shelter in a world of anarchism, because someone else and their friends can come along and kick you out of it and take over it for themselves and their friends.

 

[anotherneil]

Nah.

I bow out of this debate. I am rusty in my studies.

Ok, but we could try to arrange for this 3 island experiment and see what happens! LOL

 

[Heyo]

Atheism? Did you mean something else?

Oops, of course I meant anarchism.

 

[Heyo]

That's exactly what I want - yes, it doesn't happen in the real world & the disagreements in question wouldn't be there, which is the point of this experiment - to isolate the different ideologies to try to reveal in an objective and impartial way what works well and what doesn't.


I think you'd be right if this experiment were only for a week or two, maybe even a month or two, but 5 years is a pretty long time. I think within a year or so they'll settle into taking an approach based on their ideology, and the experiment will be able to yield some rather contrasting results.

I don't think that 5 years is a long time for a socio-political experiment.
But yes, some difference will be obvious, just not where you expect them to be. Economic differences would be much less than political ones. Political liberty would be high with the anarchists and low with the socialists. The socialists will have more collectively owned property and the anarchists will have more private "property" - if they have property at all.

 

[Heyo]

There won't be any harming or killing of each other, because the legal jurisdiction and its laws still apply. Law enforcement can still enter the islands with warrants and arrest anyone who commits a crime that involves harming or killing any other volunteers (or observers, monitors, referees, etc.).

The anarchists won't like that. It isn't an anarchy when you have external law enforcement.

 

[HonestJoe]

I think the socialist island has a somewhat fair chance of being able to perform ok, but it won't be anywhere near as good as the libertarian island.

Only because that's how your definitions set it up. You presented two extremes and one balanced middle ground between them. Some kind of balanced middle ground is pretty much always the right route in reality (the difficulties come from deciding where to strike the balance). That doesn't mean "libertarianism" is a balance between "socialism" and "anarchy" by any conventional definition though.

A "benevolent dictator" might be useful for something like going to war to defend its borders...

I wasn't proposing a dictatorship as a good system, I was just highlighting that how efficiently and consistently a system is run is more important than the fundamental principles on which they system is theoretically based.

There won't be any harming or killing of each other, because the legal jurisdiction and its laws still apply. Law enforcement can still enter the islands with warrants and arrest anyone who commits a crime that involves harming or killing any other volunteers (or observers, monitors, referees, etc.).

Well they wouldn't be operating fully under the systems you list, but under whatever broader system that law enforcement works for.

The whole point of this kind of thought experiment is that the islands are completely isolated from any external influence. If a system on an island would lead to unregulated violence or crime (or any other problems, be they social, economic or moral), you can't just introduce an external force to fix it. The whole point is to reach a conclusion about the consequences of a system without any controlling or mitigating forces. It isn't about declaring any on system the winner, it's about working out the benefits and risks of the systems and thus what limitations, compromises or balances would be needed to implement such a system in the real world.

 

[Heyo]

Oh, if it were only that simple. Example - I say capitalism is the way to abolish the state and government. @Heyo says that capitalism would create a de facto state (correct me if I’m wrong fellow anarchist).

Not exactly wrong, but let me be more precise.
Capitalism requires an authority. In a stateless society, nothing would force the workers to obey the capitalist's commands. The capitalist needs an authoritarian force of some kind. Even if he somehow could establish some form of money system or a corporation, he'd also need a private force to protect his ill-gotten gains. And good luck finding people willing to do that job, with exclusively anarchists to recruit from.

So we wouldn’t even be able to start up a cohesive system at all since we disagree with each other at the start about what anarchism is and how to go about it.

Anarchism, as I understand it, spans the political compass from the far left (Bakunin) to the sociopathic right (Stirner). The only thing we agree upon is the authoritarian/libertarian axis, we take the bottom, the whole bottom.

 

[bobhikes]

That's fine, if that's what were to happen; I think this would mean that it would only produce inconclusive results, basically.

I do think that the libertarian island is guaranteed to succeed for the entire duration of 5 years, and I think the anarchist island is guaranteed to fail before the 5 years is up. I think the socialist island may stand a good chance of succeeding for the 5-year duration, but it wouldn't surprise me if it runs into difficult problems; I'm pretty sure the socialists will be able to outlast the anarchists, though.

That's fine as well but meaningless in the long term.

 

[Nakosis]

I did a copy/paste of the OP in Gemini and then spoilered the results below

Spoiler: Gemini thoughts on the OP

​

Disclaimer: While this is an intriguing thought experiment, it's important to note that real-world implementation would face numerous challenges, including ethical considerations, logistical complexities, and the unpredictability of human behavior.​

Hypothetical Outcomes​

Given the controlled conditions and equal initial resources, the hypothetical outcomes of this experiment could be influenced significantly by the inherent characteristics of each political ideology:​

1. Anarchism:​

• Potential Challenges: Without any form of governance, coordination and cooperation could be difficult to achieve. This could lead to conflicts, resource depletion, and a lack of infrastructure development.
• Potential Benefits: Individual freedoms would be maximized, potentially leading to innovation and creativity. However, without a system to protect individual rights, there could be a risk of exploitation and oppression.

2. Socialism:​

• Potential Challenges: Centralized planning and decision-making could be inefficient, leading to resource misallocation and a lack of responsiveness to local needs. There's also a risk of stifling individual initiative and creativity.
• Potential Benefits: A focus on equality and social welfare could lead to a more equitable distribution of resources and a strong social safety net.

3. Libertarianism:​

• Potential Challenges: Without a strong government, there could be challenges in providing essential public goods like infrastructure, defense, and law enforcement. This could lead to instability and a lack of social cohesion.
• Potential Benefits: Individual freedoms and economic liberty could foster innovation and economic growth. However, without regulations and social safety nets, there could be a risk of inequality and exploitation.

Predicting the Outcomes​

Based on these factors, it's difficult to definitively predict which island would be in the best or worst shape after five years. However, some potential scenarios could play out:​

• Anarchism: While there's potential for innovation, the lack of governance and coordination could lead to significant challenges, potentially resulting in a relatively poor outcome.
• Socialism: The centralized planning and decision-making could be inefficient, but the focus on equality and social welfare could lead to a reasonably stable and equitable society.
• Libertarianism: The emphasis on individual freedoms and economic liberty could foster innovation and growth, but the lack of government intervention could also lead to inequality and instability.

Ultimately, the success or failure of each island would depend on a complex interplay of factors, including:​

• Human Behavior: How well individuals within each ideology cooperate, resolve conflicts, and adapt to changing circumstances.
• Cultural Factors: The cultural norms and values that develop within each community.
• Environmental Factors: The impact of natural disasters or resource scarcity on each island.

It's important to note that this is a highly simplified model, and real-world outcomes would likely be much more nuanced and unpredictable.

IMO,

• Human Behavior: How well individuals within each ideology cooperate, resolve conflicts, and adapt to changing circumstances.
• Cultural Factors: The cultural norms and values that develop within each community.
• Environmental Factors: The impact of natural disasters or resource scarcity on each island.

These factors are more important than the political ideology employed.
Under the right circumstances any of these ideologies could be successful. In the wrong circumstances, any could as well be disastrous.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm not voting, because I have no way of knowing what is being described in the OP.

 

[McBell]

Under the right circumstances any of these ideologies could be successful. In the wrong circumstances, any could as well be disastrous.

That is the gist I got from the AI

 

[McBell]

I'm not voting, because I have no way of knowing what is being described in the OP.

Not nearly enough detail in the OP for me to make any honest opinions.
Thus the reason i stuck it in an AI.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

Yes, and part of what this experiment will do is show what kind of conflict can arise and become problematic for each political ideology.

The conflicts that arise from policies that put the collective before the individual will be challenging to resolve on the socialist island, and the conflicts that arise from individuals putting themselves before the collective will probably be impossible to resolve on the anarchist island.

On the libertarian island, they'll have democracy, infrastructure, and equilibrium, so there's going to be much less conflict that can arise, and for the conflicts that do arise, they'll have a good system for resolving them.

Ummm, why can there not be democracy, infrastructure, and equilibrium on the socialist island?

Correct; IRL we live in a society where political ideologies are mixed together; it's hard to distinguish them. The different political ideologies will take credit for successes or blame the others for failures. The idea behind this experiment is to isolate these 3 basic political ideologies to help determine which is best & which is worst, in a scientific, objective, and impartial way.


How would they be arbitrary? I'm asking for a thought experiment, not for a guess.

Hate to break it to you, but a thought experiment is neither scientific, objective, nor impartial.

Why would they be irrelevant? You have to live in a society of different competing political ideologies and their consequences, which affect you, your family, your friends, your coworkers, your neighbor, and your society in general, so I don't think it is irrelevant.

It's irrelevant because I and my family, friends, coworkers and neighbors are not participating or involved.

If a group of like-minded individuals all decided they wanted to buy a large plot of land and live together in a highly cooperative, highly self sustaining. low environmental impact way, or another group of like-minded individuals wanted to eschew all non-human/animal powered technology and live like the Amish without their integrated religious beliefs, how is my opinion on living in those ways relevant to them and their percieved levels of happiness. Just because I may not be happy there is irrelevant.

Your thought experiment has preselected like-minded individuals, it did not take a random selection of individuals and toss them on three island to figure things out.

I don't agree; the reason for why I don't agree is because IRL we have problems war, crime, poverty, homelessness, and political corruption that we can't seem to resolve, and the same underlying conflict or dilemma that causes these problems to manifest IRL will also have the potential exist, although at a smaller or watered down scale, on the 3 islands. Some of it is inevitably going to manifest on some of the islands, and the experiment will show which ones have a propensity to cause them to manifest, and which political ideology deals with them the best when they do.

If you want to demonstrate that, then I would recommend some changes to the experiment. Make each island identical with only 10% arable land that would be barely sufficient to susstain 1000 inhabitants at subsistance levels. Next, add individuals in groups of 200 at the start of the experiment and annually for the next two years, then add the remaining 400 at the start of year four. No participants are made aware in advance of this scheme, or that there are others on the island if they are in a subsequent group.

What would your prediction be regarding the difference between a collective minded group vs an individualistic minded group in the scenario after the five years are up?

 

[LuisDantas]

Not nearly enough detail in the OP for me to make any honest opinions.
Thus the reason i stuck it in an AI.

It goes beyond a lack of information.

The OP's author has in the past described both the Democratic and the Republican parties of the USA as "too left leaning".

How am I supposed to have any idea of what he means?